Global Warming...

[Legzman]

I watched a show on discovery about the very topic a few months ago. Sad to say nothing will change. Like someone above said, government and business will only do something when it becomes profitable, and honestly lowering emitions and changing other things to help the ozone are all very costly things to business. So nothing will change! Doesn't much matter as I also read somewhere at our current rate of oil consumption we will have used all the oil on the planet in the next 50 years! It's a fossil fuel and yet humans burn through it like it's water.
like squallumz said to replace oil...we'd better hurry the fuck up and find an alternate source of fuel that's in abundance or soon all cars, trucks...anything that requires any kind of oil based substance to run on will be totally worthless. OH let's not forget we'll need to find something to replace the oil that lubricates all the engines on this planet. Take that anyone who was gonna say solar power or battery power!

 

[AFA]

Re: The problem in the US ...

Of all carbon dioxide(CO2) emissions in the world,USA alone is emitting 36%.
That`s 4% of the worlds population responsible for 36% of CO2 emissions of the world.Now tell me you can`t do anything about it and it`s our -the rest of the world- job to fix things

Until last autumn and what happened in New Orleans,your president and government wasn`t being very active in this matter(can you say this any more politely... ).The regular answer to the rest of the world,when trying to get you along with us to do something about it(like Kyoto Protocol) was "It does not serve the interests of United States".You know,it started to get on our nerves a bit,as basically what you(your government) were saying was that you were on your way to hell in first class,and we can either join you or just watch as you drag us down with you.
At least thats what it sounded like in our ears anyway.

Fortunattely during the last year even Americans have finally started to **** up to reality.Destroying this planet does not serve the interests of United States either in the long run.No matter how much profit you would make in the process.

I`m not saying that we are clean either or that there isn`t a lot more we could and should do too.But don`t say it`s our fault and that we are the ones not doing anything about it.
China is not paying any attention to anything,but that`s not the whole world outside of USA.

And about cars...
The problem certainly is not the cars alone.All forms of transportation(cars,airplanes,trucks,trains,ships etc.)produce 27% of CO2 emissions in the USA.California is a different case,as 57% of CO2 emissions in California is produced by traffic(again,all forms of transportation).
In European Union that figure is 25%.

But yes,the first step you could do is stop buying those damn SUVs.Is there anything more stupid than a huge 4x4 dinosaur used only as a grosery getter?
99% of the people who buy them will never drive off the pavement -which is fortunate as that oversized lard ass with those step boards would be useless there anyway.

Sadly this is true, I couldn't believe they opted out of the Kyoto summit, and found that to be extremely selfish and irresponsible. Wait til China revs up in the next 10 years or so, with their increasing use of fossil fuels. It is notable the 20 warmest years on record were all since 1980.

There is also a good special around by Tom Brokaw on the extreme seriousness of this all.

There is also information on the fact there is so much dust and pollution in the atmosphere that enough water molecules can't adhere to them to cause them to fall as rain. So what is happening is a mirroring effect that causes the Sun's rays to reflect back into space. This is dangerous enough on it's own, but this "greenhouse" is helping to keep the atmosphere cooler by up to 10 degrees. Without that temporary fix, it would be catastrophic already.

Just shows what bad Earth management we've suffered when this problem was identified over 40 years ago. Yes, everyone has to get rich quick, no matter what the consequences.

These are before and after pictures from the Rolling Stone article in the first post by E. Ann Hilden, just click them in sequence;
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10698217/extreme_makeover/1

 

[Member2019]

Fingerpointing = NOTHING!

Until last autumn and what happened in New Orleans,your president and government wasn`t being very active in this matter(can you say this any more politely... ).

Honestly, WTF does that have anything to do with this discussion? At some point, you have to look past the scapegoats of the current President, last President, President before him, etc... and realize we need to solve the problem! Solutions people, solutions!

That's what engineers are about. Making the world -- including the environment -- a better place! It's too bad that scientifically ignorant people think they know better than engineers. And they use one or two scientists who don't understand the first thing about feasibility as their allies.

And about cars...
The problem certainly is not the cars alone.All forms of transportation(cars,airplanes,trucks,trains,ships etc.)produce 27% of CO2 emissions in the USA.California is a different case,as 57% of CO2 emissions in California is produced by traffic(again,all forms of transportation).
In European Union that figure is 25%.

Dude, look up how much cars make up that figure! Maybe it's because you haven't been to the US, but the US' transportation infrastructure IS THE AUTOMOBILE! It's almost the entire thing! If the US did not rely on internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, we'd really bring it down to sub-30%!

Some is due to our choice in vehicles. I've been the first to lambast many fellow Americans for their irresponsible choices. But that only goes so far.

Some of it is due to the US is more spread out, with far more rural areas and distances. As such, there is far less developed mass transit. Americans are unlikely to accept widespread mass transit, and given the distances and densities involved, it can only go so far even if we did implement it. A major, contributing factor to that is that we can't carpool because the average American works 49 hours/week and rarely on a schedule. Study after study has shown carpooling to be infeasible in the US.

So the reality is that the US has to move to reduced and, eventually, zero emission vehicles. The only way that can happen is to renovate the power grid to handle it!

The IEEE-USA and fellow American EEs and I have been arguing this for years. WTF is the American public going to **** up and stop fighting newer, cleaner plants and feasible, clean energy resources?

But yes,the first step you could do is stop buying those damn SUVs.Is there anything more stupid than a huge 4x4 dinosaur used only as a grosery getter?

Hey man, I was the first guy slamming people for buying them in the '90s!

Stop fingerpointing and give us some real solutions! Until then, you're not even aware that cars are the problem in the US! We do not have much mass transit. I invite you to research what that 57% comprises of in California!

 

[Member2019]

First off, you'all talk about CFCs, but it was the US that led much of that charge! Many European nations would not accept changes until years later.

Secondly, engineers have tried, tried and tried again to introduce newer and cleaner power plants, products and countless other innovations. They are then innudated with lawsuits, scientifically-ignorant advocacy groups and many other things that keep businesses from even bothering.

California is a perfect example. They ****** building any new power plants for decades. The result? The oldest, dirtiest and worst polluting power plants of any state! All the meanwhile they couldn't even feed their own usage.

People want to generate hydrogen in their home for or directly plug in their cars? Ha! Where do people think the power comes from?!?!?! And better yet, how "clean" is that power generation where it comes from?!?!?!

The IEEE-USA and just about every EE in the US knows that it starts with the power grid. France did it a long time ago. The UK is finally doing the same as their coal reserves are being depleted. Although the US has far more coal reserves and newer EMF-based scrubbers help, most EEs want to get to cleaner power generation today. Fission, wind and other clean energy sources -- and not "pie'n the sky" solutions that are utter jokes to anyone with an electrical engineering background!!!

So we can really have low-emission and zero-emission vehicles in 2-3 decades. Until we do that, we will not have a power infrastructure that could handle such vehicles even 50 years from now! I swear, I and most other EEs in this country want to bitch-smack the fuck out of most people -- because they are part of the problem!

 

[Rattrap]

I have to agree with the bitch-smacking of the people. Already the tone of this thread is 'well, the business/government/someone else will never do anything, so sad...'

Then, you do something. Stop driving. It can be done - I do it. Every day. I don't own a car; I grocery shop, I've traveled out of state, run errands, whatever. My transportation costs me all of around $400 - a year. That's the year I bought the bicycle, to boot. If I need to go somewhere really far, I fly.

You don't live in a place you can do that, You Might say; I'd challenge you to seriously try before you say that. And if it's the case, check the laws and see if you can do it anyway (I know places like here in Oregon and California bicyclists can legally take up the whole road if they feel like). Start sending letters to your officials about getting bike lanes going. Start voting for Green party candidates. Something.

You Might surprised with what you can do saving that couple hundred a month - nevermind the benefits of staying physically fit.

 

[Member2019]

I have to agree with the bitch-smacking of the people. Already the tone of this thread is 'well, the business/government/someone else will never do anything, so sad...'

While I think it's great that people want to do 'their own, small little part,' my complaint is that some people are preventing businesses and government from solving the problem!

From ignorant environmental groups that block the building of newer, cleaner plants to "not in my back yard" attitudes on wind mill farms (fuck off Ted Kennedy), I'm really tired of it as an engineer. I, among countless others, really want to help make the world a cleaner place -- and fighting ignorant environmental groups is getting out-of-control.

When the co-founder of Greenpeace finally "has had it" with most environmental organizations in the US and their constant ****** on anything industrial instead of working with industry to build the best and cleanest solutions (which only drives costs up in legal actions and most companies just "give up"), that's really a good statement of how fucked up we are in the US.

 

[Fonzarelli]

Re: Fingerpointing = NOTHING!

Honestly, WTF does that have anything to do with this discussion? At some point, you have to look past the scapegoats of the current President, last President, President before him, etc... and realize we need to solve the problem! Solutions people, solutions!

Because Mr.Bush and his administration has been actively resisting pretty much everything that has had something to do with reducing CO2 emissions in the USA -or even admitting there is a problem.Somehow studies that has been approved by his administration in the last years have always indicated that the problem isn`t nearly as bad as independent studies from all over the world keep telling us.

Quote from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol
"The White House has also come under criticism for downplaying reports that link human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate change and that a White House official and former oil industry advocate, Philip Cooney, watered down descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, charges the White House denies.[44] Critics point to the administration's close ties to the oil and gas industries. In June 2005, State Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor."

This differs from former presidents actions in that now pretty much everybody else has understood the extreme seriousnes of this issue.It wasn`t so 10 years ago or earlier.

Dude, look up how much cars make up that figure! Maybe it's because you haven't been to the US, but the US' transportation infrastructure IS THE AUTOMOBILE! It's almost the entire thing! If the US did not rely on internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, we'd really bring it down to sub-30%!

Yes,I know a little something about transportation infrastructure in the US...
But it seems that this 36% for USA`s share of global CO2 emissions was false information,probably a misprint.The real figure seems to be somewhere around 24%-27%(different sources give different numbers).

Also the figure for transportations share of all CO2 emissions seems to vary.
This is probably the best net source for California I came up with,see for yourself
http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/global-warming/california-sources
There it says 41.2% for transportation in California for CO2 emissions,while CO2 emissions altogether are 81% of California`s global warming emissions.

Anyway,my point is that you cannot solve this problem by only consentrating on how bad cars are and praising on how wonderful the power plants and factories are.

So the reality is that the US has to move to reduced and, eventually, zero emission vehicles. The only way that can happen is to renovate the power grid to handle it!

Yes,well the alternative fuels (biofuel,biogas,etc.) has a lot to do with this matter for a long time to come.Until someday in the future perhaps all cars will be fuell cell vehicles or other zero emission things(who knows what comes up,we`re talking at least about 15-20 years before fuel cell is going to have any real significanse).

The IEEE-USA and fellow American EEs and I have been arguing this for years. WTF is the American public going to **** up and stop fighting newer, cleaner plants and feasible, clean energy resources?

Well,the oil industry lobbyists in you`re government(yes,you can read that "Mr.Bush and his administration" ) are starting to lose it
http://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/Press_109/109nr45.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change

Yeah,yeah,I know you meant environmentalist groups and such and I agree with you on that.They`re just the same here too

Hey man, I was the first guy slamming people for buying them in the '90s!

Stop fingerpointing and give us some real solutions! Until then, you're not even aware that cars are the problem in the US! We do not have much mass transit. I invite you to research what that 57% comprises of in California!

I didn`t mean to point all those issues to you personally,sorry if you got that impression.Calm down
Fingerpointing to USA was because I got an impression from your first post that you were thinking that the only thing USA can do is to reduce emissions from cars and otherwise it`s up to other countries,because "your power and manufacturing infrastructure is very clean".
You do know that as long as you burn fossile fuel,you cannot reduce CO2 emissions in any other way than reducing your fuel consumption,don`t you?
Any cleaning equipment won`t help anything at all.
But I know you already knew that.Someone just could get a little different impression from your first post.

Peace

 

[ÆGEAN]

so true. the ozone layer cant replenish. can it? :dunno:

i read in a science mag here in oz that the ozone layer WAS replenishing... DUE to the significant drop in products that use CFC's. Yes the hole is still fucking huge but they said it was slowly getting smaller...


i don't know these days... so many lies and facts that are blended into each other...:dunno:

 

[Iamforever]

i don't know these days... so many lies and facts that are blended into each other...:dunno:

ding ding ding. because i read that the huge hole was over antarctica. who knows what to believe?

 

[Fonzarelli]

First off, you'all talk about CFCs, but it was the US that led much of that charge! Many European nations would not accept changes until years later.

I don`t remember this but you could be right.I know Americans aren`t any more evil than any other people,no one`s claiming that
Traditionally Americans have always been in the front line of cleaning all kinds of pollution,usually even ahead of western Europe and Japan.Especially when it comes to cars;in the US cars had catalytic converters long before general public had even heard of unleaded fuel here in Scandinavia.And I`m talking about a difference of at least a decade or so.

But this global warming issue is a whole different thing,and this time it really has been very much different kind of actions your government has taken.

Secondly, engineers have tried, tried and tried again to introduce newer and cleaner power plants, products and countless other innovations. They are then innudated with lawsuits, scientifically-ignorant advocacy groups and many other things that keep businesses from even bothering.

The IEEE-USA and just about every EE in the US knows that it starts with the power grid. France did it a long time ago. The UK is finally doing the same as their coal reserves are being depleted. Although the US has far more coal reserves and newer EMF-based scrubbers help, most EEs want to get to cleaner power generation today. Fission, wind and other clean energy sources -- and not "pie'n the sky" solutions that are utter jokes to anyone with an electrical engineering background!!!

The real final solution will be fusion energy sometime in the future.At the moment the estimate is about 40-50 years from now.But the estimate has been "~50 years from now" for about 50 years already,so we`ll see...

At the moment the only quick solution "to end it all" would be fission energy,but then there comes the amount of uranium resources on this planet.If all energy in the world would come from nuclear power plants,we would run out of uranium pretty quickly.I don`t remember the exact number now,but it`s something like 20-30 years.

But personally I think it would be the best thing to start building those fission plants pretty damn quickly,as it won`t happen overnight anyway.
And that`s actually what`s going on here in Finland at the moment.Kyoto Protocol didn`t leave us choices,it`s either more nuclear power or bye bye to paper industry -which is the backbone of Finnish economy,and among the most energy craving forms of industry there is.

And because fission is not going to solve this permanently,more funds for fusion energy research might be a good idea too.And I mean this as a global project.

Wind energy is not going to solve anything in the global scale.Locally yes,but...that is in such a small scale that it really is not going to help much.

Solar energy is a bit iffy too,to say the least.No quick help from there either.Perhaps some day,but I have understood that not much hope is put on that anymore,at least in foreseeable future.

 

[Member2019]

The Bush administration, post-2004 election ...

But this global warming issue is a whole different thing,and this time it really has been very much different kind of actions your government has taken. At the moment the only quick solution "to end it all" would be fission energy,but then there comes the amount of uranium resources on this planet.If all energy in the world would come from nuclear power plants,we would run out of uranium pretty quickly.I don`t remember the exact number now,but it`s something like 20-30 years.

Using fission technology from the 1950s, yes. Using fission technology that the French are already using and the Japanese have been moving too -- try 200-300! These new designs re-use the countless waste already generated by existing plants. At US plants alone, there is over 100 years of fuel rods that are useless for existing designs.

As of 2004, the Bush Administration finally admitted that human generation of CO2 is a danger. I was very glad to see this. The Clinton administration admitted it was an issue, and did absolutely nothing to solve it. Even Gore side-stepped it repeatedly when it came to actually providing solutions. That's one thing the Bush Administration has now done. When the co-founder of Greenpeace things it's the right thing to do, with anti-fission power being his whole reason for founding Greenpeace in the first place, that says something!

The Bush Administration has put $4B towards new fission plant research over these last 2 years -- just as much as the Clinton Administration spent over 2 years on missile defense (of which, Clinton actually funded more than W., even though W. gets all the credit). We are not going alone. A coalition of 10 international nations -- basically the G8 with China and Russia -- are working together on developing these nexgen plants that the French have pioneered. Again, as much as I make fun of the French government (not the people), they do have their "act together" when it comes to power.

Sadly this is true, I couldn't believe they opted out of the Kyoto summit, and found that to be extremely selfish and irresponsible.

Kyoto calls for countless reductions without even considering how to do it. It also focuses on only 1 environmental issue, which severely penalizes the production capability of nations without looking at other, just as serious issues that affect other nations. It's easy to complain about the US and China without considering their raw production capability. But the second you start looking at pollution as a factor of industry output, the US drops well below Europe while China skyrockets over.

As more and more production moves from the US to China, pollution will grow exponentially.

Clinton signed Kyoto knowing full well it wouldn't pass. It was shot down by every single member of his own party! That's not providing leadership. To provide leadership, you need to be thinking decades down the road, and actually come up with real solutions to get there. Clinton, H. Bush, Reagan and not even Carter did that! But I'll give W. credit, he's trying as of 2004 -- all the rhetoric aside -- he put $4B towards the US leading the new 10 nation collaborative research into the nexgen of fission plants.

As much as I've never voted for W., I have to say, since late 2004, he's honestly trying to get some things changed. From the Environment to Social Security -- I was quite shocked when he started admitting just how badly we (the US) are shape. That's real leadership! Not just leaving it for the next President, but trying to get it started before he exits. He got no where on Social Security (which is utterly doomed and I hope everyone in Gen-X knows it), but he is moving forward on his new energy policy.

Again, I utterly disagreed with W. in 2000-2004, but after the 2004 election, his energy policy has swung over. He recognizes that to get hydrogen or zero emission vehicles, we have to not only make our power grid cleaner -- but far more importantly, increase its production output by 3x or more to handle home consumption that comes with hydrogen as well as increased electrical usage.

 

[Member2019]

The Bush administration, post-2004 election ... (part 2)

Because Mr.Bush and his administration has been actively resisting pretty much everything that has had something to do with reducing CO2 emissions in the USA -or even admitting there is a problem.

Yes, from 2000-2004 before the 2004 election. But after the 2004 election, he really made a change. I've read his newer energy policies, and for the most part, he's the first President I've ever agreed with!

Clinton was a joke and Gore is a major and total hypocrite! I really wish people would read up on Gore and his hypocritical stances on the environment. He also offers no solutions other than his (now failing, don't get me started) "Energy Star" program, and his personal life is a tragic example of "I will make everyone else do it, except myself and my friends." That's one thing I despised by about the Clinton-Gore administration -- everything from NAFTA to tax increases.

Somehow studies that has been approved by his administration in the last years have always indicated that the problem isn`t nearly as bad as independent studies from all over the world keep telling us.

The posturing on "how bad" is politics. I don't care about that non-sense. It's just more bullshit finger pointing. We are spending way too much in lawyers and rhetoric/counter-rhetoric. What we need is real leadership providing the way towards solutions!

Quote from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol
"The White House has also come under criticism for downplaying reports that link human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate change and that a White House official and former oil industry advocate, Philip Cooney, watered down descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, charges the White House denies.[44] Critics point to the administration's close ties to the oil and gas industries. In June 2005, State Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor."

I'm quite aware of what is published on the Kyoto treaty. And anyone who knows anything about the US history and involvement in Kyoto knows that it was a chronic Clinton failure! W. is just now "stuck with the check" from that failure of the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration signed it knowing full well the US could not adhere to it, and no one in the US Congress approved it under the Clinton administration -- shot down 0-98-2.

People blame Bush for Kyoto and he had nothing to do with it. Bush, like Clinton before him, can't enact it. It is impossible for us to adhere to it for the near future. Now under the Bush administration, we have turned around and signed several international treaties on reductions with not just 1st world countries that Kyoto focuses on, but China and other developing nations. Things that will be a reality in 20 or so years, if we start introducing feasible solutions now.

This differs from former presidents actions in that now pretty much everybody else has understood the extreme seriousnes of this issue.It wasn`t so 10 years ago or earlier.

Sorry, I have to strongly disagree. Please read up on even the Ford and Carter administrations. Also read up on Reagan and H. Bush, as well as Clinton. CO2 output has always been an issue, just a lesser issue than Lead, Nitrates, Sulfur, CFC and other issues that have been largely addressed by the '80s. We knew it was a problem since the '70s, but people have argued about how much.

Since 2004, the Bush administration has not only acknowledged that it's an issue, but has -- unlike the Clinton administration -- put real funds towards real solutions. Yes, the Bush administration "downplays" how much, just as other people "up play" how much -- it's called politics, rhetoric and counter-rhetoric. The reality is that engineers like myself -- who not only respect the environment but have the knowledge and experience to address it keep getting drowned out by the politics.

The Bush administration is the first ever administration to put real money towards our future in solving the problem. No offense, but the general public is really too political and self-defeating of itself to be involved in the solution. I'll point to California as a perfect example of an utter failure of environmental policy by the public.

Anyway,my point is that you cannot solve this problem by only consentrating on how bad cars are and praising on how wonderful the power plants and factories are.

Compared to cars, even coal power plants are a crapload cleaner. That's engineering fact and reality.

Now if we could not only renovate our nuclear power plants, but build new ones, while installing EMF-based filters in coal-fire power plants -- we could generate the "clean" electricity required to power electric as well as fuel-cell (home hydrogen electrolysis) vehicles. If and when that happened, the US could come damn close to being Kyoto compliant. In fact, if we did that, our biggest issue would become CO2 generation via agriculture -- namely livestock (which produces quite a bit of methane).

Yes,well the alternative fuels (biofuel,biogas,etc.) has a lot to do with this matter for a long time to come.

Biofuels aren't enough. We need to get to true low-emission and absolute zero emission vehicles. There is a lot of creation of greenhouse gases in all sorts of processing, as well as consumption. We have to eliminate both.

Until someday in the future perhaps all cars will be fuell cell vehicles or other zero emission things(who knows what comes up,we`re talking at least about 15-20 years before fuel cell is going to have any real significanse).

But we have to renovate our power grid to support the 3x power generation required to even get to fuel cells and electric vehicles. That means we must renovate our power grid *NOW*.

As of 2004, Bush is the first President of the US that has actually put forth that focus. Not the lip service (although he does a bit too much of that too), but the actual R&D required to push forth new designs for both fission power plants as well as renovate existing coal (which the US has quite a great supply of, unlike the UK and others) plants with new EMF-based scrubbers and technologies.

Well,the oil industry lobbyists in you`re government(yes,you can read that "Mr.Bush and his administration" ) are starting to lose it
http://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/Press_109/109nr45.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_political_action_on_climate_change

You should read up on the industry ties Clinton-Gore had (and Gore still has) too. It's why I don't even pay attention.

I watch Bush's actions. On the environment, I gave him a F- until 2004. As of 2004, I give him a C+. Not bad considering I gave virtually every other President a F as well -- although I'll give Carter a D for some genuine honesty.

Fingerpointing to USA was because I got an impression from your first post that you were thinking that the only thing USA can do is to reduce emissions from cars and otherwise it`s up to other countries,because "your power and manufacturing infrastructure is very clean".
You do know that as long as you burn fossile fuel,you cannot reduce CO2 emissions in any other way than reducing your fuel consumption,don`t you?

Not true! There are ways to remove CO2 fossil fuel plant emissions which we have today. It's greatly reduced over the direct result of ICE in cars.

No, you still get a sizable about. And the fact that power generation has to be pumped over transmission lines results in a great amount of loss as well. But still, for every amount of work an electrical engine can generate versus an ICE, the amount of emissions is 5x less because of filtration at the power planet versus ICE. Unfortunately, it also takes 5x the amount of fossil fuel.

Any cleaning equipment won`t help anything at all.
But I know you already knew that.Someone just could get a little different impression from your first post.

Again, please research this. That is utterly incorrect. There are ways to trap CO2 from staying a gas and being released into the atmosphere.

 

[HeartBroker]

Only those that were around here 40 million years ago should be allowed to comment.
Ask anyone you know what it was like on this planet then and see if they are freaked out about global warming.

 

[Montrealman]

Wow, it's getting hot in here.

 

[AFA]

ABC News;
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2655929

 

[Fonzarelli]

Re: The Bush administration, post-2004 election ...

Ok,I won`t get any deeper into that argument over US politics and who has done what.I believe that you know better than I do.
From outside it has just looked like Mr.Bush haven`t really done nothing but trying to keep US from reducing it`s CO2 emissions.

Still,I find it difficult to understand how US cannot afford to do more,let alone ratify Kyoto Protocol.

Using fission technology from the 1950s, yes. Using fission technology that the French are already using and the Japanese have been moving too -- try 200-300! These new designs re-use the countless waste already generated by existing plants. At US plants alone, there is over 100 years of fuel rods that are useless for existing designs.

Yep, I stand corrected.I did a little search about this and there clearly is some more potential in fission than I thought/knew.This issue has been quite a hot topic here in my neck of woods lately and lots of all kinds of information come and go -from anti-nuclear parties and pro-nuclear parties and it`s sometimes a little difficult to tell where the truth lies in there.
For example a former Finnish Green Party leader said in an interview I read a while ago that the uranium resources would last for only a little over 10 years if all energy would be made in fission plants.He is usually quite knowledgable person,but I also know that he is very much biased against pretty much everything

Kyoto calls for countless reductions without even considering how to do it. It also focuses on only 1 environmental issue, which severely penalizes the production capability of nations without looking at other, just as serious issues that affect other nations.

This is quite serious issue,you know...I wonder what you consider "just as serious"?

It's easy to complain about the US and China without considering their raw production capability. But the second you start looking at pollution as a factor of industry output, the US drops well below Europe while China skyrockets over.

Are you sure?If we speak of only Western Europe and leave the ex-communist countries out of this?Do you actually know it or just think so?

Also,if we think of who really is responsible for all this,then what do you think?
China may be shooting lots of CO2 to sky now,but we -the rich countries- have been doing so for over 100 years now.Don`t you think it is only fair that we lead the way and let the others follow,even if it takes a while until they are able to do it?

That industry output really isn`t any viable defence here,if you ask me.

Finland is up here in the north,we need heating most of the year,most of our industry is heavy,needing lots of energy,but still we can manage Kyoto.And I can only assure you that we aren`t any 3rd world country that can sign Kyoto without need to do anything.

As more and more production moves from the US to China, pollution will grow exponentially.

Absoluttely,no doubt about that.

The Bush administration is the first ever administration to put real money towards our future in solving the problem. No offense, but the general public is really too political and self-defeating of itself to be involved in the solution. I'll point to California as a perfect example of an utter failure of environmental policy by the public. .

From the richest nation in the world,which is also the biggest net emitter of CO2 and one of the biggest CO2 emitters per capita,I don`t think $4 billion is really that much -if nothing else is done.
Or did Bush do something else too,except talk and give this $4 billion for a research program?
(It`s a good and useful program,I`m not complaining about that.It`s just that it will have "real life" results in about ~25 years or so,from what I`ve read)

Just to put this in perspective,General Motors invested over $1billion in it`s EV-1 programme alone(yes,I know how it ended,but that`s not the point here).

Compared to cars, even coal power plants are a crapload cleaner. That's engineering fact and reality.

Aha.And how excactly do you compare cars and coal power plants?Grams per mile?
What kind of cars?
And what difference does it make?
You can`t travel to work in a coal power plant,and you can`t produce electricity for your town with a car.
But if you compare overall emissions of cars and coal power plants in USA,then I really don`t know how you justify that statement.It just plain ain`t so,period.

Transportation activities accounted for 33% of CO2 emissions for fossile fuel combustion in 2004 in the US.
~60% of this resulted from a gasoline consumption for personal vehicle use.
So,this means ~22% of all CO2 emissions from fossile fuel combustion in the US came from personal vehicles.

Fossile fuel combustion accounts for ~85% of all CO2 emissions in the US.
This means that personal vehicles are responsible for ~19% of all CO2 emissions in the US.

Here`s a pic
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/ES6.gif

Electricity generation represents 38% of CO2 emissions in the US.And as you can see from that picture,coal is pretty big factor there.
I didn`t find(no time,and I`m too tired) any specific % number for coal,but I`d say from that picture that it makes more than 22%(of CO2 emissions from fossile fuel combustion).
Sources:
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
and this pdf
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/download06/06ES.pdf
(You wouldn`t believe how hard it was to find any figure for personal vehicles,everywhere it`s just "transportation",meaning all forms of transportation)

Heh,I`m trying to remember how we got into this cars vs power plants argument in the first place:1orglaugh
If my memory serves me right,the issue was about if you can solve this problem just by reducing CO2 emissions from personal vehicles in the US,or if you should do something else too.
If personal vehicles make 19% of all CO2 emissions in the US,then I suppose we can be fairly certain that it wouldn`t be enough even if all cars would turn into some sort of zero emission things tommorrow.

If you think this 19% is not reliable number,then be my quest and try to find some better info.
I can tell you it`s not easy;the site I gave you above was the only one I could find that gave any numbers at all for personal vehicles -even though I really turned the net upside down,as I`m a bit interested of this.

Now if we could not only renovate our nuclear power plants, but build new ones, while installing EMF-based filters in coal-fire power plants -- we could generate the "clean" electricity required to power electric as well as fuel-cell (home hydrogen electrolysis) vehicles. If and when that happened, the US could come damn close to being Kyoto compliant. In fact, if we did that, our biggest issue would become CO2 generation via agriculture -- namely livestock (which produces quite a bit of methane).

I`ll say this at this point even if there might have been some better places to quote.

You keep mentioning these electric vehicles.Do you mean public transportation,or do you mean electric cars?
As an electrical engineer you probably know that electric cars are quite far from being ready to replace our current vehicles.The batteries just aren`t up to it.
Here`s your chance to get rich and help saving the world;invent a battery that will make electric cars a viable choice for internal combustion engined cars
All the auto companies have already spent several fortunes in this issue,but all it takes is a new innovation no-one has thought of before.

Biofuels aren't enough. We need to get to true low-emission and absolute zero emission vehicles. There is a lot of creation of greenhouse gases in all sorts of processing, as well as consumption. We have to eliminate both..

Most certainly they aren`t enough,if nothing else is done.But they are part of the change,and they are realistic today.
They are much better than fossile fuels,and we can`t afford to just wait for some perfect solutions to arrive on decade x.

But we have to renovate our power grid to support the 3x power generation required to even get to fuel cells and electric vehicles. That means we must renovate our power grid *NOW*.]

Well I have already figured out that your job has something to do with US power grid,and so I can kinda understand that from your point of view this is a big issue.But I just cannot believe it`s such a bad problem if and when it`s necessary to renowate it.It`s only a matter of money,and then hard work.But nothing that can`t be done because we don`t know how to.

Not true! There are ways to remove CO2 fossil fuel plant emissions which we have today. It's greatly reduced over the direct result of ICE in cars.

No, you still get a sizable about. And the fact that power generation has to be pumped over transmission lines results in a great amount of loss as well. But still, for every amount of work an electrical engine can generate versus an ICE, the amount of emissions is 5x less because of filtration at the power planet versus ICE. Unfortunately, it also takes 5x the amount of fossil fuel.

Again, please research this. That is utterly incorrect. There are ways to trap CO2 from staying a gas and being released into the atmosphere.

Can you point me to some web source where I could learn more about cleaning CO2 emissions at power plants?This is all news to me.
I tried to find info myself,but without success.

 

[Fonzarelli]

Re: The Bush administration, post-2004 election ...

Damn,I read my post and realized that those calculations up there are all messed up.Sorry,I`m really tired :o
Here`s how it should have been.

Transportation activities accounted for 33% of CO2 emissions for fossile fuel combustion in 2004 in the US.
~60% of this resulted from a gasoline consumption for personal vehicle use.
So,this means ~20% of all CO2 emissions from fossile fuel combustion in the US came from personal vehicles.

Fossile fuel combustion accounts for ~85% of all CO2 emissions in the US.
This means that personal vehicles are responsible for ~17% of all CO2 emissions in the US.

Here`s a pic
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/ES6.gif

Electricity generation represents 38% of CO2 emissions in the US.And as you can see from that picture,coal is pretty big factor there.
I didn`t find(no time,and I`m too tired) any specific % number for coal,but I`d say from that picture that it makes more than 20%(of CO2 emissions from fossile fuel combustion).
Sources:
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
and this pdf
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/download06/06ES.pdf
(You wouldn`t believe how hard it was to find any figure for personal vehicles,everywhere it`s just "transportation",meaning all forms of transportation)

 

[Fonzarelli]

Re: The Bush administration, post-2004 election ...

Sources:
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
and this pdf
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/download06/06ES.pdf
(You wouldn`t believe how hard it was to find any figure for personal vehicles,everywhere it`s just "transportation",meaning all forms of transportation)

I have to quote myself again,but I noticed that pdf link doesn`t work.
Here`s one that works
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/06ES.pdf

 

[Member2019]

Re: The Bush administration, post-2004 election ...

Excellent information!

First off, fossil fuel consumption has 100x more emissions than anything else.

Secondly, depending on how it is categorized, directly consumption of fossil fuels for transportation is still the largest generator. Adding in indirect consumption (e.g., fossil fuel used for power generation for hydrogen-extraction or direct engine use) makes this even worse.

Third, there is a significant amount of local power generation by residential and industry that is clearly generating additional CO2 emissions. This is typically above and beyond what the power grid can sustain and businesses/residences can afford to rely on.

Lastly, over 80% of fossil fuel CO2 emission in power generation comes from coal.

This clearly goes towards my continued goal of:

A1. Renovating the power grid to support 3x as much consumption as well as make it "cleaner" by using EMF scrubbers to prevent various release, including CO2 (yes, we can prevent CO2 from becoming a gas released in the atmosphere). This could reduce the US' CO2 emissions by almost 20%, while reducing need for local residential/commercial power generation.

A2. In the meantime, focus more on gas-electric hybrid technology to cut transportation-based emissions in half, or about another 20% of all CO2 emissions.

B. Upon renovation of the power grid, eliminate emissions with the fuel-cell and direct electric engine vehicle, removing over half of the CO2 emissions today.

This is clearly a 25+ year plan. There is no other way to accomplish it. The IEEE knows it. Engineers know it. Virtually anyone who has been so briefed understands it.

But the ignorance US populous, as fed by environmental bigots and self-defeating policy, believes that they can change the world of transportation while utterly ignoring the power grid. "Honda makes a home unit that makes hydrogen, so I can leave the oil companies while helping the environment."

Hey stupid! What do you think powers that unit and where does its electricity come from? Do you think the power grid can support the load if everyone had one? And how "clean" do you think our power grid is?

Good info! It only furthers my believe that the power grid and transportation are inter-mingled in the issue.

 

[thorsif]

Experts say within 20 years the weather change in the UK will be equivalent to the South of France. I say "Bring It On":rofl: